Chapter 10, "The Answer." Was Paul talking about a cloth veil, or was he talking about long hair? Or was there actually no custom at all about either one? The historical evidence is strikingly clear. The record reveals that the early churches all understood Paul to be talking about a cloth veil, not long hair. The only thing that wasn't clear to some of the early Christians was whether or not Paul's instructions apply to all females or only to married women.
The reason is that the Greek word "gyne" used by Paul can mean "a female," or it can mean "a married woman." Around the year 200, at Carthage, North Africa, Tertullian—there's a footnote on Tertullian, let me read it to you now. Tertullian was an elder in the North African church at Carthage and was one of the most gifted apologists of the early church. He penned his writings during a span of about 20 years, from AD 190 to 210.
In addition to his apologetic works, Tertullian wrote several essays exhorting Christians to "maintain their separation from the world." For more information about Tertullian and the other early Christian writers, I refer you to my earlier book, "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?" Back to the text.
Tertullian wrote a tract entitled "The Veiling of Virgins," in which he argued that Paul was using the word "gyne" in the sense of "a female." In the course of his argument, Tertullian described the various practices throughout the church, including the practice in the Church of Corinth. His tract gives us a wealth of information.
Quoting from that writing: "I also admonish you, second group of women, who are married, not to outgrow the discipline of the veil, not even for a moment of an hour; because you can't avoid wearing a veil, you should not find some other way to nullify it; that is, by going about neither covered nor bare. For some women do not veil their heads, but rather bind them up with turbans and woolen bands. It's true that they are protected in front, but where the head properly lies, they are bare.
Others cover only the area of the brain with small linen coifs that do not even quite reach the ears. They should know that the entire head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when it is unbound. In this way, the neck too is encircled. The pagan women of Arabia will be your judges, for they cover not only the head, but the face also.
But how severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who remain uncovered even during the recital of the psalms and at any mention of the name of God? For even when they are about to spend time in prayer itself, they only place a fringe, tuft, of cloth, or any thread whatever on the crown of their heads. And they think that they are covered." End quote.
Earlier in his tract, Tertullian testified that the churches that were founded by the apostles did insist that both their married women and their virgins be veiled. Quoting again: "Throughout Greece and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of churches keep their virgins covered. In fact, this practice is followed in certain places beneath this African sky. So let no one ascribe this custom merely to the Gentile customs of the Greeks and barbarians.
Moreover, I will put forth as models those churches that were founded by either apostles or apostolic men. The Corinthians themselves understood him to speak in this manner, for to this very day the Corinthians veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, the disciples of the apostles confirmed." End quote.
Clement of Alexandria, an elder writing from Egypt around the year 190, counseled: "Let the woman observe this further: let her be entirely covered, unless she happens to be at home; for that style of dress is grave and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall who puts before her eyes modesty in her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face.
For this is the wish of the word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled." Hippolytus, a leader in the church at Rome around the year 200, compiled a record of the various customs and practices in that church from the generations that preceded him. His "Apostolic Tradition" contains the statement: "And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen; for this is not a true covering." End quote.
This written evidence of the course of performance of the early Christians is corroborated by the archaeological record. The pictures we have from the 2nd and 3rd centuries from the catacombs and other places depict Christian women praying with a cloth veil on their heads. So the historical record is crystal clear. It reveals that the early generation of believers understood the head covering to be a cloth veil, not long hair.
As Tertullian indicated, even the women who did not wish to follow Paul's teaching were not claiming that Paul was talking about long hair. Rather, they simply wore a small cloth in minimal obedience to his teaching. Nobody in the early church claimed that Paul's instructions were merely a concession to Greek culture. Nobody claimed that they had anything to do with prostitutes or pagan priestesses.
Next subheading: "Back to Scripture." Now let's go back to Scripture and see if the historical understanding is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the scriptures.
The early Christian understanding of this passage gives the full literal meaning to verse 4, saying, "A man must not wear anything on his head when praying or prophesying." And to verse 5, "A woman should be veiled or covered when praying or prophesying." Yet it does not contradict verses 14 and 15, that nature teaches us the same principle that men should not be veiled, but that women should, since men naturally wear their hair short and women wear it long.
More importantly, the historic record nicely fits the final common-sense rule of interpretation we attorneys use. The American Law Institute has expressed this principle as follows: "An interpretation which gives a reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all the terms is preferred to an interpretation which leaves a part unreasonable, unlawful, or of no effect." Applying this principle to Bible interpretation, we can state it this way.
Principle number 7: an interpretation that leaves parts of Scripture void or unreasonable should be rejected. This principle is simply common sense, reduced to words. When you or I write a letter or an essay, we normally intend for everything we write to have meaning, don't we? We don't intend for some of our statements to be totally ignored. Nor do we intend for part of what we write to be interpreted in such a way as to totally nullify the other things we have written.
The historical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 squarely meets this common-sense principle. It gives full meaning to everything Paul has said. In contrast, our modern interpretations do not. Take, for example, the interpretation that Paul was saying that men should wear their hair short and women should wear their hair long. What does it do to verses 4 through 6?
Paul says in verse 4, "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head." Under this interpretation, the "something" that Paul is talking about would have to be hair, wouldn't it? So should men shave off all of their hair? In verse 6, Paul says, "If a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off." To follow the modern interpretation, Paul would be saying, "If a woman does not have long hair, let her also have her hair cut off." How reasonable is that?
If a woman's hair is short, it is because it is already cut off. If Paul is talking about the length of hair, why would he focus on praying or prophesying? Can a man's hair be long while he is doing other things and then suddenly become short when he is praying or prophesying? Can a woman's hair be short while she is doing other things and then suddenly become long when she is praying or prophesying? In short, this modern interpretation reduces most of this passage to an absurdity.
If Paul were simply addressing the length of hair, why didn't he just come out and say it? Why would he have gone through this protracted language about coverings or veils? He could have simply said, "Men should wear their hair short and women should wear their hair long." Any interpretation that renders a passage absurd is an absurd interpretation.
Or how about the interpretation that the only reason that this passage was written was so that the Christian women of Corinth wouldn't be mistaken as prostitutes or pagan priestesses? If that is what this passage is all about, why is part of it addressed to men?
Furthermore, this interpretation contradicts what Paul said in verse 10, "Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels." If this modern interpretation were correct, then Paul is either in error here, or else he is lying. In other words, either Paul didn't know why he was giving these instructions, mistakenly thinking they had something to do with the angels, or else he purposely gave a false reason.
In short, this interpretation fails the test of common sense, for it invalidates most of what Paul said. Another modern interpretation is even worse. This is the interpretation that verse 16 is saying that there was no such custom of wearing a head covering. Quote: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." Was Paul saying there is no other practice than to be unveiled? Or was he saying there is no other practice than to be veiled?
If we say that Paul was saying that there is no other practice than to be unveiled, then why did Paul even bother to write this passage at all?
In effect, we have him giving all of this counsel, connecting it to the order of creation and to the angels, and then saying, "But if you don't like these instructions, don't follow them, for no one else is following them either." Next subheading: "The Excellence of the Historic Interpretations." In contrast, the historic understanding offers us a literal, reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned passage. Every other interpretation ends up nullifying all or part of it.
Some interpretations also add a lot of assumptions that aren't even in the passage. I have found this same pattern to be true of all of the early Christian understandings of Scripture. They don't add something to Scripture; they take away the human traditions that we have added. They nearly always leave us with the bare literal meaning of Scripture. They bring us back to the meaning we would have seen to start with if we had not been blinded by our preconceptions.
As I said previously, this is not a book about the head covering. We have been looking at the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 only to illustrate this common-sense approach to Scripture interpretation. So let's review these common-sense principles. The seven common-sense principles of Scripture interpretation: 1) Begin with a blank slate. 2) Start at the beginning of the New Testament with the teachings of Jesus. 3) Give each verse its literal meaning.
4) Consider every scripture that relates or could relate to the subject. 5) Reject any interpretation that would render some of the scriptures void or unreasonable. 6) Look at the course of performance, how the first several generations of Christians understood the Scripture. 7) To determine the course of performance, always go to the primary sources. It's that easy. In fact, it's almost too easy. It's so obvious, why have Christians not been using it?
Why on earth have we Protestants torn asunder the body of Christ so needlessly? I can assure you that it isn't because no one else has ever thought of looking at the historic course of performance. Rather, it's because those who have searched the historical record have not found what they wanted to find.